Blake Lively has encountered another setback in her legal dispute with Justin Baldoni as a New York judge has complicated her efforts to retract her ’emotional distress’ claims against him.

Documents acquired by the Daily Mail indicate that both parties have been engaged in a legal tussle regarding allegations from Lively that her co-star caused her emotional distress, with Baldoni’s legal team insisting she substantiate her claims via her medical records.

In response, Lively’s legal representatives attempted to discreetly remove this aspect from her prominent lawsuit on Friday, but they sought to do so without prejudice, allowing for the possibility of refiling the claim later.

She argued that she voluntarily sought to withdraw the claim in ‘good faith to streamline the dispute’ and filed a motion opposing Baldoni’s request for her medical records in a letter filed on Monday. 

Now, the Daily Mail can reveal that Judge Lewis Liman has agreed to deny Baldoni’s demands for her medical records based on Lively’s decision to drop the claims, however, he also ruled that both sides will now have to negotiate whether the emotional distress element will be dismissed permanently. 

In another blow, Judge Liman said he will not allow Lively’s team to produce evidence of emotional distress in court.

The 24-hour legal spat has already seen claims and counterclaims traded by both sides, with Baldoni’s team saying the 37-year-old is trying to ‘have it both ways’.

Last night, legal representatives for Lively hit back with a furious statement accusing Baldoni of orchestrating a ‘press stunt’ and saying they had offered to drop the emotional distress claims in ‘good faith’.

In a statement released to the Daily Mail, attorneys Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb said: ‘Once again this is a routine part of the litigation process that is being used as a press stunt.

‘We are doing what trial lawyers do: preparing our case for trial by streamlining and focusing it; they are doing what they do: desperately seeking another tired round of tabloid coverage.

‘The Baldoni-Wayfarer strategy of filing retaliatory claims has exposed them to expansive new damages claims under California law, rendering certain of Ms. Lively’s original claims no longer necessary.

‘Ms. Lively continues to allege emotional distress, as part of numerous other claims in her lawsuit, such as sexual harassment and retaliation, and massive additional compensatory damages on all of her claims.’

Then, in a fiery letter obtained by the Daily Mail, Gottleib and Hudson attempted to have Baldoni’s motion to compel medical records dismissed, arguing it was based on ‘two brazenly false assertions’.

But that move has now failed thanks to Judge Liman, with Lively’s emotional distress claims now off the table.

Despite today’s win, Baldoni will still have to defend himself over her other claims which include sexual harassment and the orchestration of a smear campaign against her.

The 41-year-old is also pursuing a $400million countersuit of his own that also claims defamation and accuses the glamorous blonde of damaging his reputation and career.

The legal spat has produced months of negative headlines for Lively who has also had to look on as her friendship with superstar bestie Taylor Swift deteriorates in public, largely due to the singer’s fury at being dragged into the case.

Last month, the singer found herself on the receiving end of a now withdrawn subpoena and in the middle of a row over whether Lively had tried to force her to issue a supportive message by threatening to release a decade’s worth of text messages.

The former provoked a stinging response from her rep who said the megastar had had nothing to do with It Ends With Us beyond providing a song for the soundtrack.

The statement read: ‘Taylor Swift never set foot on the set of this movie, she was not involved in any casting or creative decisions, she did not score the film, she never saw an edit or made any notes on the film, she did not even see It Ends With Us until weeks after its public release, and was traveling around the globe during 2023 and 2024 headlining the biggest tour in history.’

Her spokesperson added: ‘The connection Taylor had to this film was permitting the use of one song, ‘My Tears Ricochet.

‘Given that her involvement was licensing a song for the film, which 19 other artists also did, this document subpoena is designed to use Taylor Swift’s name to draw public interest by creating tabloid clickbait instead of focusing on the facts of the case.’